| John S Stuart 12.09.2009 13:04 |
Captain grumpy here - but what a disappointment. Do not believe me? In 1999 The Beatles released what was described at the time as the 'definitive' 'Yellow Submarine' CD Soundtrack & DVD video. Three tracks come from the classic 'Revolver' album: Love You To (1999 remix) Eleanor Rigby (1999 remix) Yellow Submarine (1999 remix) These tracks were a complete transformation over their original 1960's (and mid 1980) LP/CD releases. True stereo spread (as opposed to instruments on one side - vocals on the other). Digitally cleaned up de-poped/hicked etc. Promised (and delivered) 'Beatles from the studio into the home'. Promised (and delivered) 'Beatles for the new millennium'. The newly released 2009 remastered series - is a return to the old inferior remixes - taking the Beatles back from the 21st century and plunging them deep into the 1960's. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Definitive means definitive. To vastly improve something - only to rerelease the version before last is wrong! And while I am on my soapbox, why two CD sets? One Stereo and one mono? Surely there is enough space on a CD to hold both stereo and mono mixes - but why release one set, when the real numpties will buy two? Seb - where are you when we need you? |
| john bodega 12.09.2009 13:07 |
... thanks for the warning! Haha. |
| John S Stuart 12.09.2009 13:17 |
PS: Compare 1999 'Yellow Submarine' songtrack CD to the just released 2009 version. Honestly: Which is the better version? |
| john bodega 12.09.2009 13:36 |
I have neither, and I am now too afraid to pay to hear the comparison. Hahaha. I return the floor to the rest of you. |
| catqueen 12.09.2009 14:33 |
That would be sickening. But although i love the Beetles, I am not paying for new new releases (even though I don't have a huge amount of their stuff, much as I love it). Hmm, maybe QP aren't the only ones out for money? |
| *goodco* 12.09.2009 22:08 |
I've read nothing but good reviews......so I'm sorry at your disappointment, John. I only see myself getting the first four 'albums' (since the originals are all mono), and then moving on up to 'Sgt Pepper' much later. How do these rate? The first four HAVE to be better. Same with 'Rubber Soul' (just to have the vocals spread out rather than the annoying same channel throughout). As to cashing in......they did the Anthology series (terrific, would have enjoyed more), the BBC recordings (nice addition), Yellow Sub (improvement), "1" (nothing great, but good), and the 'Let It Be....Naked' (terrific). That's it! No umpteen greatest hits mish mashes that the Elvis and Sinatra estates have milked the cow on. Or all the new and improved remixes that Deep Purple and others are guilty off (how many different ANATO, ADATR, NOTW and Queen GHs exist now?) I understand the separate mono releases. I do wish those were made available individually, and at a price around $10 USD, not $300 for a limited edition box set. Only 'Sgt Pepper' and 'The Beatles' in mono have any personal interest. Thanks in advance. |
| The Real Wizard 13.09.2009 01:55 |
Abbey Road has never sounded better. It is a significant improvement to my ears. But from what I've read, A Hard Day's Night is the most drastic improvement of them all. |
| john bodega 13.09.2009 03:08 |
Well now I'm conflicted! Come on audiophiles, spit it out! What's changed? I've heard the lead vocals have a lot more presence (the review I read suggested maybe a little too much so, like John is sitting right next to you or something - not that I'd really complain). |
| YourValentine 13.09.2009 03:44 |
Has anyone bought the mono box? It's selling out fast and I am undecided. I buy the stereo box anyway for the DVD and commentaries but I think the mono box must be worth having, too... On CNN we can hear 2 small samples comparing the 1987 versions to the new remasters http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/09/remastered.beatles.review/index.html "Money" sounds very different because the acoustic guitar is not so prominent anymore but is it better or just different? The difference of the "Dear Prudence" mixes is not so evident as in "Money". |
| john bodega 13.09.2009 04:18 |
It does make my head spin a bit. What now counts as 'definitive'? The ones made by the band using technology of the time? Remixes approved by surviving members of the band? |
| YourValentine 13.09.2009 04:34 |
I ask the same question. Certainly the 1987 mixes are not the end-all because at the time the technology was not that advanced but who defines what is the best mix... |
| john bodega 13.09.2009 05:23 |
It's bit of a grey area when one likes to look at music or film as an art form. A remix that changes the nature of the piece, I mean ... ha! Just realised how pretentious I'm sounding, and I suppose for the average listener it's no big deal. |
| Bo Rhap 13.09.2009 06:01 |
I've just checked beatles.com/store The mono box set is retailing at £199.99 and the stereo box set is retailing at £169.99. There appears to be no difference in content apart from the obvious.So why the £30 difference? |
| ***Marial-B*** 13.09.2009 06:03 |
I am interested in buying the stereo albums of 1963 and 1964. Those should be quite good. My dad will buy the boxset, I can't afford Rockband and the boxset. I prefer to buy them seperately. |
| John S Stuart 13.09.2009 07:35 |
Godco: Rubber Soul is a disappointment. Pepper is the same. They both contain that annoying split channel stereo, and not a patch on the 1999 remixes. No true stereo spread at all. I understand that some will prefer this - as this was the original recording. But the idea was to improve the original recording, and it doesn't. My advice save your money and avoid the hype. Trust in the force Luke - which do you prefer? |
| pma 13.09.2009 07:56 |
Too bad the mono editions are not sold as individual discs. I recall reading on stevehoffman.tv (a few years ago that is) that they would be released as double-sets with the stereo and mono version on each disc. How unfortunate that this was not the case. The price tag on the boxes is way too much for me, and even if I had extra money to dish out I'd definitely want to evaluate the product thurally (listen to it for hours and hours) before deciding if its worth it. Well, there's always hardcore piracy and public libraries to help me evaluate... |
| John S Stuart 13.09.2009 08:04 |
Don't get me wrong. I really like the Beatles. I grew up with the Beatles. The Beatles are my first musical memories. So this is NOT a public slanging. Rather, I am disappointed in myself because I broke the first Golden Rule: Do not believe the hype! |
| John S Stuart 13.09.2009 08:27 |
YourValentine wrote: Has anyone bought the mono box? It's selling out fast and I am undecided. I buy the stereo box anyway for the DVD and commentaries but I think the mono box must be worth having, too... On CNN we can hear 2 small samples comparing the 1987 versions to the new remasters http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/09/remastered.beatles.review/index.html "Money" sounds very different because the acoustic guitar is not so prominent anymore but is it better or just different? The difference of the "Dear Prudence" mixes is not so evident as in "Money". Just listened to this link Barb, and I think it is a very good and fair review. I would urge all to listen to it. They emphisise the positives - while I have highlighted the negatives, but we both agree that buying these products will not shatter your world. I have no 'investment' other than audio, so I would say for the price, the box sets are far too expensive and not worth it. (Even though I still actually bought them - more money than sense I guess!). However, on reflection, discriminate purchases of individual albums may be the best way forward. On reflection, if you have a spare $200 they may make a nice present for someone. Otherwise, the original CD releases stand just as tall as these new remasters. My problem is that I expected the old original releases to be eclipsed by a gigantic shadow, and in truth, that is not the case. |
| john bodega 13.09.2009 08:52 |
To be honest I'm really not sure how to feel about this, now having heard some examples! I might just look at the cost of getting all the albums .. in whatever form they were before this re-release, and weigh it against getting the new one as cheap as I can. As I've said, I only own the Anthology myself- everything else is stuff I've 'borrowed' from friends or family. So buying the new set only to find it's no big improvement isn't a problem for me. |
| The Real Wizard 13.09.2009 12:02 |
John... that 1999 remix is superb. I can only wonder why they stuck with the old stereo mix for the 2009 re-release. |
| John S Stuart 13.09.2009 12:17 |
Sir GH wrote: John... that 1999 remix is superb. I can only wonder why they stuck with the old stereo mix for the 2009 re-release. Thanks for that. I do not want to hog this converation. This is not my 'thread' - I just wish to bounce ideas with like-minded (neutral) audiophiles. So please, please me (no pun intended) and let's get a proper audiophile discussion going. The dedicated Beatles boards are too biased, as they see these new releases as a Messiahianic return. Even then, I too agree, that there are some really good 2009 versions, and 'Money' is a really good example of all that is positive with the set (but I have only listened up to 'Pepper' so far). However - having listened to the 1999 remixes for the last 10 years, I guess I was expecting all tracks to be upto this standard - and clearly they are not. I have also had the Stereo German bootleg CD's for some time - so the first four new albums (for me) are no great shakes either. Based on my subjective opinion I would highly recommend the 2009 'Hard Day's Night' & 'Help' discs - that seems to be the best of the new bunch so far. I now look forward to GH's 'Abbey Road', recommendation and will let you know how I get on once I reach that album. |
| YourValentine 13.09.2009 14:44 |
I agree that the 1999 mixes sound far superior. Too bad they did not follow that route for the 2009 mixes. I ordered the mono box - at least it's something that was not done before. And I saved so much money I wanted to spend on Queen audio DVDs, GVH3, archive releases.... |
| Yara 13.09.2009 18:55 |
I don't have any of the albums on CD. I had worn out some of my recordings beyond recovery already. So I ended up buying the series. I know I'll whine about not having enough free space in this hellhole here, but I think the fact I hadn't bought any of the releases on CD makes my purchase at least justifiable. It was a win-win situation, I guess. Sooner or later I'd have to update my collection, if for no other reason to be actually able to listen to the music. What better time to do it? That said, I'm not expecting much from the documentaries. I think Anthology is pretty exhaustive and all the Beatles I need to know about is there. I have the movies. So the main appeal to me was simply being able to listen to the music again. |
| FriedChicken 15.09.2009 04:01 |
I made some A/B comparisons of the old and the new remasters. And I'm also dissappointed. It all sounds really loud and compressed too much, if you listen to the guitars in Two of Us, it sounds so compressed that you can hardly hear they're guitars. Also if you listen to the drums in the verses they're really flat and have a really granular, gritty quality to them. I really don't like this heavy compressing, it sounds like a McCartney solo album! |
| john bodega 15.09.2009 04:29 |
Oh God say it isn't true!!! Please tell me they haven't taken the Macca Compressor to the Beatles albums!!! |
| YourValentine 16.09.2009 15:17 |
The mono box arrived today, it looks cute with all the album replicas, inner sleeves and even the Sergeant Pepper cut out that used to be in the old LP. I listened to Sergeant Pepper because I never owned a mono version and I like the sound although I would not say it sounds "better" than the stereo version I am used to, There are some distinct differences in the mix which makes you wonder why it was changed for the stereo version.(I am comparing to the 1987 stereo CDs, I do not play my old LPs anymore). The mono mixes do not sound outdated or "flat" at all. From the booklet I learned that the first four albums were never mixed into stereo and are therefore also mono on the 1987 CDs which is true - the first 4 CDs are all mono. Funnily, however, I own a vinyl album "With The Beatles " from the 60s which is definitely a stereo mix - now where does this come from? My "Help" and Rubber Soul" LPs are also stereo, so I assume they are the same as the additional "first stereo" mixes in the mono box. I will need a lot of time to listen and compare but I can listen to the Beatles anytime, for me they are time- and ageless. |
| *goodco* 16.09.2009 15:36 |
The first four LPs were released as 'stereophonic'.....and various tracks were made into stereo up to 1969 for Capitol Records. Once again..........how are the first four albums as far as 'better' than the crappy '87 CDs? (appreciate the reviews for those previously mentioned on this thread). As to 'Sgt Pepper' and 'The Beatles'....the LPs were released in mono, as well as stereo, since stereo was still somewhat of a new concept back in those stone ages. One could go on and on in referencing singles on through the 'Magical Mystery Tour' EP/USA album and all the stereophonic variances. Thus the different mixes, and different versions of so many tracks. Differences also related to releasing songs to the USA before the final mixes were complete for the UK albums. http://www.jpgr.co.uk/i_beatleslp_date.html is a great website detailing all Beatle and solo releases. Mark Lewisohn's 'The Complete Beatle Recording Sessions', published in 1987, is, more or less, THE bible for accurate reference, and a great read for those interested. |
| YourValentine 17.09.2009 05:05 |
"Once again..........how are the first four albums as far as 'better' than the crappy '87 CDs?" I listened to "With The Beatles" last night and I am afraid that you will be disappointed if you expect a complete new sound experience. I hear some instruments and backing vocals clearer than in the 1987 mix but I would not say there is a lightyear of a difference. Maybe it's asking for the impossible to think that you suddenly get a 21st century sound out of the old tapes. But then I did not feel like "standing in the studio" when I listened to the samples on CNN I posted in the link above, either, so my judgement is not worth that much. If you are a hardcore Beatles fan I recommend the mono box for the improvement because there is just no other upgrade but for a casual listener it's probably not worth the money. |
| ***Marial-B*** 20.09.2009 06:29 |
YourValentine wrote: Funnily, however, I own a vinyl album "With The Beatles " from the 60s which is definitely a stereo mix. My dad owns all the capitol LP's and they're on stereo. After that he bought the original 60's LP's, and they were stereo also. When he bought the 1987 CD's, he got mad they weren't on stereo xD. |
| The Real Wizard 20.09.2009 15:20 |
YourValentine wrote: I own a vinyl album "With The Beatles " from the 60s which is definitely a stereo mix - now where does this come from? I'll second what goodco said... it's probably the 1969 re-release. |
| *goodco* 30.09.2009 12:41 |
Curious as to what the 'bonus features' are for each release. It's difficult to go food shopping, and then seeing the big display of all the Beatle remixes, and not purchasing anything because I'll be getting most of them for Christmas. How long, and how well done, are the added computer videos? thanks again in advance |
| Mr Mercury 30.09.2009 13:11 |
*goodco* wrote: Curious as to what the 'bonus features' are for each release. It's difficult to go food shopping, seeing the big display with all the new stuff, and not purchasing anything because I'll be getting most of them for Christmas. How long, and how well done, are the added computer videos? thanks again in advance If you mean the mini documentaries, then they are all up on YouTube |
| Negative Creep 06.10.2009 17:30 |
They were always going to be re-masters - NOT re-mixes. Whilst I agree re-mixed versions would have been amazing - I would have hoped the sonic improvement would have been more like Love (although, obviously without all the fucking about with flying other bits of songs in etc) than the Yellow Submarine CD that sounds fairly awful - they've shoved all the multitrack tracks through some god awful digital compressor and they just sound mushy. The reason the sets have been given such amazing reviews is because all the journos were played them on a top of the range studio set up in Abbey Road (and probably from higher bit rate than CD as well!!). Apparently they've actually already remixed the albums in stereo, and the later ones for 5.1 - who knows how these will be issued. |
| john bodega 07.10.2009 03:17 |
I keep seeing songs uploaded on Youtube that are being touted as being from the stereo remaster : I bloody hope these people are kidding .... it sounds fucking woeful - 3 times the compression used on Memory Almost Full! Surely this is just a leg pull, right? |
| Negative Creep 07.10.2009 06:22 |
There's barely any compression on the remasters. They could have done with more I reckon. There's even less on the mono ones - which, in reality, haven't been re-mastered and sound quite dull. |
| john bodega 07.10.2009 08:19 |
Well in any case I don't have the spare money to buy them and then discover that I hate them. Hehe... I will have to go without for now. |